> Should the HAVE_KERNEL_PLL conditional be abolished? Or. to put it > equivalently, do we have any development targets that lack ntp_adjtime()/ > adjtimex()?
That symbol is not defined when I build on OpenBSD. I'd be happy to clean up that area, but I think it is more complicated than you have indicated. There are 2 RFCs RFC1589: Kernel Model for Precision Timekeeping RFC2783: Pulse-Per-Second API There are actually two interesting parts to that tangle. The first is getting timing data for a pulse. PPS for NTP is the main use, but it can also be used for general hacking. (I use it to monitor the power line frequency.) The second is a PLL inside the kernel that gets switched on if you set a bit. That works significantly better than whatever ntpd does. I think we should be able to fix this. It's not a trivial fix. It may require implementing the wake-on-data-ready option which doesn't seem to be implemented. (but maybe I didn't look in the right place) The "HAVE_KERNEL_PLL" is used for both of them even though there is nothing PLL related to the first usage. -- These are my opinions. I hate spam. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
